Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 MAY 2011

Extension of dual insurance principle confirmed

The worker suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident in the course of his employment. His employer, Tiger Tours, operated the vehicle while Caringbah Bus, an associated company of Tiger Tours, was the registered owner of the vehicle.

AustraliaInsurance

Zurich Australia Insurance Limited v GIO General Limited [2011] NSWCA 47

Facts

The worker suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident in the course of his employment. His employer, Tiger Tours, operated the vehicle while Caringbah Bus, an associated company of Tiger Tours, was the registered owner of the vehicle.

The worker sued Caringbah Bus for damages in the District Court under the Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 ('MACA'). He did not sue Tiger Tours, and Caringbah Bus did not join Tiger Tours as a cross defendant. Caringbah Bus admitted liability.

An issue between the worker and Caringbah Bus in the District Court proceeding was whether s151Z(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 ('WCA') operated to reduce the damages recoverable by the worker from Caringbah Bus.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from